Commerce, Justice, Science, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - July 26, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Pence:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following new title:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to enforce the amendments made by subtitle A of title II of Public Law 107-155.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very straightforward amendment. It would prohibit funds appropriated in this bill from being used by the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal penalties provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold. It would, essentially, prevent the Justice Department from using funds to enforce criminal penalties against organizations that make electioneering communications under that bill.

The electioneering communications section of McCain-Feingold prohibits the use of corporate or labor union funds to finance broadcast advertisements that include the name or depiction of a Federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days before a general election. Basically, it restricts the first amendment rights of Americans, whether they be in right-to-life organizations or the AFL-CIO or other labor organizations, from lobbying their Representatives and using the airwaves in those days before elections.

Happily, on June 25 of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, ruled unconstitutional this provision of the McCain-Feingold law that prohibits the broadcasting of such issue advertisements prior to an election, even if those advertisements reference a Federal candidate, and even if the advertisements have some electoral effect. It was, in a very real sense, Mr. Chairman, a huge victory for the first amendment because it's a major step in restoring the free speech rights to grass-roots lobbying organizations, left, right, and center.

The ruling allows advocacy groups around the country, like Wisconsin Right to Life, the freedom to run ads to encourage citizens to contact their legislators on issues of importance to them. And it reasserts the principle that the presumption under the law should be in favor of free expression rather than the muzzling of speech.

Those of us who hailed this ruling and welcomed it as a first step toward the reversal of McCain-Feingold were encouraged, but we knew this was not the end of the story. As the sole House plaintiff in the McConnell v. FEC case that challenged McCain-Feingold, I believe we must maintain our effort, which is to ensure that that about McCain-Feingold that intrudes on the first amendment rights of every single American are challenged. And that's why I'm on the floor today.

The Pence amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court's ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life. It simply states that no funds under this bill can be used to enforce criminal penalties against any organization airing such an issue advertisement. It further prevents criminal penalties attendant to the reporting requirements associated with the airing of such ads. We should not allow criminal penalties to be imposed on citizens for engaging in protected speech and for not reporting to the Government about their protected speech.

That is the crux of the Pence amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. PENCE. I'd be pleased to yield.

Mr. NADLER. Is your amendment limited to saying you can't use funds to enforce criminal penalties against what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional, or does it have broader effect against other provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill?

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's question.

In fairness, my amendment says that no funds may be used to force amendments made subject to title A of title II of Public Law 107-155, which, according to some, is slightly broader than the Supreme Court decision. But this is the provision of the law that the Supreme Court essentially struck down. That's the crux of the Pence amendment.

All of those who claim allegiance to the first amendment, I believe, should be thrilled with the Wisconsin Right to Life decision and support the Pence amendment.

I think we still have much to do to reinstate full first amendment protections to the American people. But I continue to believe we're badly trampled by McCain-Feingold.

But passing the Pence amendment today in the Congress would simply reaffirm the essential elements of the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case. It's an important first step on this floor. It's one I encourage my colleagues to support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source